So, as mentioned in my former post, here's
an animation of a box, being spun around with
a macro, and being moved about using rotation.

The particles inherit inertia from the spin and the
movement of the Birth-Field. I'm not too sure, if
that is easily identifiable, but exaggerating the spin
even more would result in overkill...

600 particles, exact tracing time unknown,
due to system crash at some point... Probably
around 20 to 30 minutes for 125 frames.

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'bft_bfa_inertia.mpg' (315 KB)

Hi Tim,

while the animation is technically impressive, it's not very good at
demonstrating of what use it is. Generally I prefer demo scenes and
animations which resembles recognizable environments or situations.

For example a good demonstration of a particle system might make people
think "water!" or "smoke!" or "sparks!" or similar. In your animation I
only think of a box and some spheres and I don't know how I could use it
in one of my scenes.

Consider the difference between the questions "what can it do?" and
"what can it be used for?". I think that the success of a utility,
macro, include file etc. depends mostly on how well the last question is
answered, not the first. Sadly, because some people don't recognize
this, some very good and powerful utilities are sometimes used by very
few people. (That's my theory anyway.)

I think some of your other demo animations were very good, for example
those demonstrating smoke effects. But this one, though it's a nice
effect, doesn't really appeal to me because I don't see any use of it.

While saying this, I should also acknowledge that some of the demo
scenes for my own particle system were also a bit too abstract. But I
try to remind myself to primarily attempt to simulate things which I
could see myself using in a real scene rather than just in a particle
system demo.

This is all of course just my own opinion. Other's thoughts are most
welcome! :)

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:  http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated May 20)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring:  http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

I guess you're pretty much right on this one.

In this case though, I was thinking that we have some
particle-system coders running around here on the
newsgroups, and at least those might be interested...

But, I suspect that though they have seen it, they
don't know what to comment on it. After all, its
just an inerta demonstration, and it works. So there's
no option for "do this" or "do that" (except a "do a
useful animation" ;)

I'll keep that in mind for future posts. Thanks for
your note though, I guess it woke me up from my
"wow, neat code/algorithm working here, anyone
wanna see?"... ;)

Rune wrote:

> Hi Tim,
>
> while the animation is technically impressive, it's not very good at
> demonstrating of what use it is. Generally I prefer demo scenes and
> animations which resembles recognizable environments or situations.
>
> For example a good demonstration of a particle system might make people
> think "water!" or "smoke!" or "sparks!" or similar. In your animation I
> only think of a box and some spheres and I don't know how I could use it
> in one of my scenes.
>
> Consider the difference between the questions "what can it do?" and
> "what can it be used for?". I think that the success of a utility,
> macro, include file etc. depends mostly on how well the last question is
> answered, not the first. Sadly, because some people don't recognize
> this, some very good and powerful utilities are sometimes used by very
> few people. (That's my theory anyway.)
>
> I think some of your other demo animations were very good, for example
> those demonstrating smoke effects. But this one, though it's a nice
> effect, doesn't really appeal to me because I don't see any use of it.
>
> While saying this, I should also acknowledge that some of the demo
> scenes for my own particle system were also a bit too abstract. But I
> try to remind myself to primarily attempt to simulate things which I
> could see myself using in a real scene rather than just in a particle
> system demo.
>
> This is all of course just my own opinion. Other's thoughts are most
> welcome! :)
>
> Rune

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message